Where is the Love in Environmental Education Research? A Diffractive Analysis of Steiner, Ecosomaesthetics and Biophilia

Abstract

In environmental education research (EER), love is revered as a way to heal or mend the human relationship with nature. However, this interpretation of love rests in a humanist paradigm that considers nonhuman nature as external to the human being. To this end, love has generally been considered as an outward emotion, towards nature, and is less considered an inner movement, towards the human as nature. We were interested in exploring this conceptualisation of nature and love of/as nature and question: Is there potential to locate the concept of love in EER through different theoretical positions to explore the possibilities for its (re)conceptualisation? We aim to stretch academic thinking to (re)consider love through identifying where our own research in environmental education has involved love through the intersection of our journeys at the Australian Association of Environmental Education Research Symposium workshop. In response to the context of this workshop, which explored the concept of diffraction as described by Barad, we have chosen to adopt a diffractive analysis as the methodology to analyse our theoretical perspectives of love in EER. We explore the word love in this article using diffraction to understand the relationality of human and nonhuman nature through our research interests in Steiner, ecosomaesthetics and biophilia. This process cracked our theoretical silos to more openly consider: Where is the love in EER?

A passionate partnership: understanding the origins and significance of John Sinclair’s connection with K’gari (Fraser Island)

“…Questions such as 'Where is the love in environmental education research?' (Blom, Aguayo, & Carapeto, 2020) have emerged from discussions at recent conferences, examining the relationality between people and other living organisms. The editors of AJEE Volume 36, Birdsall and White, point out in their introduction that:…”

Cultivating the biophilic self

“…My argument that Harva's writings encourage the adoption of a biophilic attitude towards nature is further supported by the fact that the concept of biophilia centrally involves the role of emotions (e.g., Blom et al, 2020;Orr, 2004). Indeed, Harva (1982a;1987a;1988g) acknowledged the important role of the presence of emotions in extending one's moral responsibility towards nature.…”

“…He seems to have encouraged an appreciation of nature as a precious gift to be experienced (Harva, 1982a), and highly valued the pursuit of a unique and individual relationship with the natural world around us (Harva, 1971;1978;1982c;1987a;1988c;1988g). Such a strong unique relationship with nature is often described in the research literature as a biophilic attitude (e.g., Blom et al, 2020;Joye & De Block, 2011;Orr, 1995;2004, pp. 131-152;Rolston, 1995;Wilson, 1984).…”

“…The concept of biophilia and necrophilia, which refers to biophobia, were originally developed by the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1900Fromm ( -1980. Biophobia was first used as a counterpart to biophilia by the American biology professor Edward Wilson (1929Wilson ( -2021, who enriched the concept of biophilia by including a concern for everything in nature (Wilson, 1984;1993;Blom et al, 2020;Joye & De Block, 2011, p. 190).…”